Blindness: The Circle of Sophistry

An Address Delivered By Kenneth Jernigan
President, National Federation of the Blind
At the Banquet of the Annual Convention
Phoenix, Arizona, July 6, 1984

Sophistry, we are told, is an argument or proposition which is clever and
plausible but false and misleading. To illustrate let us consider color. We
learn from the dictionary that color is: "The property of reflecting light
of a particular wavelength." in other words if an object is green, the
color (or wavelength) green is reflected back, and all other colors (or wavelengths)
are absorbed. White, as everyone knows, is the absence of color, and black is
the opposite. Yet, what we call black reflects no light waves at all and is,
thus, the absence of colorwhile what we call white (again to quote the
dictionary) is: "The reflection of all the rays that produce color."
Therefore, the logic is inevitable: black is white, and white is black.

I wish I could say that the linguistic sleight-of-hand
which I have just performed is symbolic of nothing more
vicious than verbal gymnastics or a pleasant game, but that
is not the way of it. Sophistry is no toy. It is one of
the most deadly weapons in the arsenal of tyranny. It has
bedeviled and bedazzled humanity since the beginning of
history. If (as the saying goes) hypocrisy is the tribute
which vice pays to virtue, then sophistry is the tribute
which lies pay to the truth.

Sophistry takes its name from the sophists of ancient
Athens. It was the principal instrument which they used
first to discredit, then to imprison, and finally to execute
Socrates. It was big in the middle ages with the
Inquisition and the burning of witches. It flourishes today
in the twentieth century. All we need do to understand the
power of clever and plausible but false and misleading words
is to remember the twisted rhetoric of Joseph Goebels and
Adolph Hitler. Except for the glitter and hypnotic lure of
sophistry the Nazi tanks might never have rolled, and the
death and destruction of the Second World War might never
have been.

And what sophistry has done to society as a whole it has done to the component
partsespecially and particularly to disadvantaged minorities. And of all
the minorities, none has experienced more cruelly and bitterly the blight of
sophistry than those of us who are blind. It has been our greatest stumbling
block, our heaviest burden. It remains so today.

The clever and plausible but false and misleading arguments (the propositions
which put us down and keep us out) are temptingly easy to accept and believe.
With respect to the blind the message is clear and uncomplicated: the blind
lack eyesight. Other people have it. Sight is important. Therefore, the blind
are inferior. We are unable to compete. We must be taken care of. We cannot
hold jobsnot, that is, unless the work is very simple, very repetitive,
and very subsidized. We cannot raise children, travel independently, or manage
our own lives. When one of us makes an achievement of obvious excellence, we
are told that it means we have special genius, special talents, or unusual powers.
Our other senses have grown keener to compensate. We are marvels, freaks, conversation
pieces, and objects of pityand often all at the same time and by the same
person. According to this line of thought, whatever you call it and however
you cut it, we are not (and can never hope to be) everyday, normal peoplelaughing,
crying, working, playing, succeeding, failing, hoping, and dreaming like those
around us. We are blind. That is sufficient. It is a matter of simple logic
and common sense.

This is the traditional norm, the time-honored belief; and if it is true,
we should face it, not fight or deny it. And we should face it not angrily or
bitterly but with acceptance and humility, with gratitude for the charity we
receive and the sufferance we are given. Moreover, if (as we are repeatedly
told) this is really how it is, we should disband the National Federation of
the Blind and confront out troubles alonedrawing whatever comfort we can
from doctor, social worker, or priest; for there will be little purpose in collective
action. If our problems are inherent in our blindness (if they are truly innate
and not externally imposed), then our whole organizational existence has been
not only a tragic mistake but a cruel detriment, for we have kindled hopes which
can never be realized and conjured dreams which can never come true.

But, of course, this is not the way it is; and no sophistry on earth can make
it that way. The arguments and propositions which hold that we are inferior
are clever and plausible, but they are false and misleading. To put it bluntly,
they are just plain lies. The fact is that the average blind person can compete
on terms of equality with the average sighted personin whatever line of
endeavor you care to mention: work, play, criminal conduct, saintliness, immorality,
rectitude, ill-temper, gentle behavior, laziness, or creativity. Then, why (one
reasonably may ask) do seventy percent of the blind of employable years not
have jobs? And even when we do get jobs, why are so many of us relegated to
the sheltered shops and paid less than the minimum wage? Why (if what I am saying
is the truth) are we told where we can sit on airplanes, denied insurance on
equal terms with others, custodialized in the home by our families, condescended
to on the streets by strangers, and treated in general as if we were children
or freaks?

The answer is easy to give but hard (at least at the
emotional level) for the average person to accept. In
primitive societies light (whether firelight or daylight)
meant safety and survival. Darkness meant danger and fear.
Light and the ability to see were equated, and they were
thought of as good and pure. Blindness was considered
synonymous with darkness, and darkness meant evil and
inferiority.

The blind were not good at hunting or dodging a spear, so they were regarded
as a drag on the tribe, a burden and a hindrance. They were treated and thought
of as second-class, and they doubtless accepted the public view of their limitations,
with a great many feelings of guilt and shame thrown in for good measure.

We no longer live in the hunting culture of primitive
times, but we often act as if we do. The myths and
prejudices of those times still dominate our feelings and
control our subconscious. In today's society there is very
little premium on killing a saber-tooth tiger or dodging a
spear, but when you dig beneath the surface and get to where
we live, our attitudes indicate otherwise. The cave-man
culture is gone, but the cave-man values remain. At the
core of our being we fear the dark; we shiver at the roar of
the saber-tooth tiger; and we feel that the blind are a
burden to the tribe.

How (in the face of irrefutable evidence to the
contrary) are all of these myths maintained? How (with
blind persons successfully doing every conceivable kind of
job, having families and raising children as effectively as
anybody else, and participating fully in the political and
social life of the community) can the false assumptions and
second-class treatment survive? The answer can be given in
a single word--sophistry. It is not, for the most part,
that the average citizen on the street wants to do us harm
or deprive us of opportunity. It is not (except when their
jobs or their vested interests or their egos are involved)
that the employees of the governmental and private agencies
doing work with the blind wish us ill. Certainly it is not
that we ourselves seek to sell ourselves short and limit our
horizons. Yet, the myths about blindness remain, bolstered
and reinforced by clever and plausible but false and
misleading arguments and propositions.

The mistaken beliefs and false concepts are almost
universally accepted by the general public, and when people
lose their eyesight, they carry with them into blindness the
erroneous ideas which they held when they were sighted.
They then live the part they are expected to play and feed
back to society the misconceptions which it gave them in the
first place. Likewise, those who are born blind are taught
their roles from the beginning, and unless they are given
counterbalancing information, they live as they are expected
to live. They think as they are expected to think.

To make matters worse the employees (whether blind or
sighted) of the governmental and private agencies
established to give service to the blind are also (with
notable exceptions) part of the negative process. The urge
to feel important is very nearly irresistible. Therefore,
when these "experts" tell the blind that they must adjust to
a very limited existence and when they tell the sighted that
their work is so difficult and complex as to approach the
mysterious, they are generally believed. This is so even
though what they are dispensing is not "professional"
knowledge or the results of research or new truth but simply
old ideas and the fear of the dark, which they absorbed as
children. Thus, the circle is complete, with each component
giving feedback and reinforcement to the rest of the loop.

Yet, despite the sophistry and the widespread belief
that we are inferior, we have made gains. In fact, during
the past four decades there has been such an upsurge of
progress and achievement as to constitute a veritable
revolution. The new element (the root cause) is represented
by those of us here tonight. You know what it is as well as
I do. It is the National Federation of the Blind.

When Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and the rest of that handful
of founders met in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1940 to
organize our movement, they understood what they were doing
and what it would mean. The Federation was to be the
vehicle for concerted action by the blind. It was to be the
circuit breaker to stop the flow of clever and plausible but
false and misleading ideas which went in a seemingly endless
circle from the sighted public to the agencies serving the
blind to the blind themselves and back again.

That is what the National Federation of the Blind was
created to do, and that is what it has done. We have done
it in the past; we are doing it now; and we intend to keep
on doing it in the future--regardless of who dislikes it or
how much they resent it. Established patterns are
comfortable. They require no mental effort, and they give
money and power and prestige to various groups and
individuals. But we are simply no longer willing to be
second-class citizens. We want no strife or confrontation,
but we will do what we have to do; and we are absolutely
determined to break the circle of destructive sophistry
which blights our lives and limits our opportunities. We
know who we are, and we will never go back.

One of our problems is the tendency of the general
public to try (regardless of the truth of the matter) to
make us conform to their notions of what we are. When the
facts are at variance with their preconceptions, they tend
to forget the facts and remember it and tell it as they
thought it was in the first place. No one is worse at this
"don't bother me with the facts; I know how it is" attitude
than the members of the media.

The July 24, 1981, edition of the News Tribune of
Tacoma, Washington, carried a feature article about Glen
Latham. Glen, who is totally blind and a staunch
Federationist, is a Vietnam veteran. He is also a home
owner in Tacoma. The newspaper reporter (a Ms. Willene
Anderson) said that she wanted to write an article to help
remove the stereotypes and misconceptions about the blind.
She came to Glen's house and talked with him at length. You
can determine from the letter which Glen wrote to Ms.
Anderson's boss whether she told it like it was or simply
liked it the way she told it:

The purpose of my letter, [Glen wrote,] is two-fold.
The first is concerned with me personally. The second is
concerned with the blind in general and the stereotyped view
that Ms. Anderson's article encourages.

Ms. Anderson has me quoted as saying, "Our sight is one of many things
we take for granted. When it is gone, we must start out lives all over again,
just as children learningonly this time in the dark." I do not recall
making such a statement. Children learn to walk and talk. They do not have to
be taught to see. I did not have to learn to walk or talk again.

I recall mentioning to Ms. Anderson that my mother had
died. Ms. Anderson made no inquiries as to when my mother
died or if I lived with her. I made no statement which
could even possibly have implied that I lived with my mother
after my return from the war. When I came back from Vietnam
in February of 1968, I spent six months in Balboa Naval
Hospital in San Diego, six months in rehabilitation in Palo
Alto, then six months back in the hospital for further
operations. My mother died a month before, my release from
the hospital. Had Ms. Anderson asked, she would have known
this.

Ms. Anderson leads her readers to believe that after I
recovered from my wounds, I went to live with my mother.
Then she died, leaving me all alone to pick up the pieces of
my life once again. Stating that I lived with my mother is
a complete falsehood.

Ms. Anderson has me quoted as saying, "It used to be so important to
me, the outdoorsthings I could see. I had always dreamed of living in
this area." This is false. During the interview, Ms. Anderson said, and
I quote, "Glen, you are very athletic. What do you think about the handicapped
climbers of Mt. Rainier?" Ms. Anderson assumed that I am athletic; I am
not. I made no mention of liking the outdoors or of being athletically inclined.
I did not tell her that I had "always dreamed of living in this area. I
stated that I had always liked living in this area. There is big difference
between "liking" and "dreaming."

When I was looking for a home to purchase, Ms. Anderson
implies that I had to take into account numerous special
considerations. She states that "many homebuyers are
looking for things that are aesthetically pleasing." This
implies that I was not. Why wouldn't I want a home that is
aesthetically pleasing? Of course it was an important
factor!

Ms. Anderson states that the house doesn't have any
"extra barriers, like steep stairs or sharp corners." Whose
house did she look at? From the street it is obvious that
the house has a second floor. She made no inquiries
concerning the architectural design of the place. But how
could she have missed the upstairs, even if she missed the
basement? There are, in fact, two flights of what are
considered "steep" stairs in my home. One flight leads to
the second floor, and the other leads to the basement, where
I spend most of a time working at my desk. My home could
not be considered small. I have 2,400 square feet of living
space. The previous owners of the house were not visually
impaired or physically disabled in any way, and the house
remains structurally and architecturally the same it was
when I bought it.

Ms. Anderson also states that I "get help in mowing my
lawn and other outside work." She made no inquiries
concerning yard work. The fact of the matter is that I have
hired a professional lawn service. The lawn service I use
serves over 90 homes in the Tacoma area, and very few of
these homes are occupied by the disabled or the elderly.
The hiring of the lawn service does not mean that I cannot
do the work myself. Why do the other homeowners have the
same service?

Ms. Anderson states that my relatives help me. My
cousin and her son live with me. I am helping her go to
college. We have a living arrangement that is helpful to
both of us. She has lived with me for the past year. Prior
to that she lived in California, and for almost five years I
lived alone. I was not, and am still not, dependent on my
relatives.

Ms. Anderson states that my furnishings are simple. I
think this is a commentary on her taste and not my
furniture. She states that "furniture in the middle of the
room would be bothersome." Bothersome to whom? Perhaps she
didn't see the coffee table that stands in front of the ten
foot sofa that she was sitting on during the interview.
Perhaps she didn't see the large ottoman which sits in front
of the large round swivel chair that I was sitting in.

Ms. Anderson made no inquiries as to who does the grocery shopping. Yet, she
says in her article that I rely on my relatives to do it. Sometimes I shop with
them; sometimes I don't. My cousin and I usually shop for groceries once a month
as a matter of convenience because of our busy schedules. We buy large quantities,
requiring the use of a carwhich, I may add, I own.

Ms. Anderson also stated that "housecleaning chores are
mostly done by relatives." How does she know this? She
certainly didn't ask. If she had, she would have found that
we all share equally in the housework. Everyone keeps their
own room clean, including my cousin's seven-year-old son.
We all share in keeping the rest of the house clean. She
has me quoted as saying that I can cook, iron clothes, and
do household chores. However, she turns right around and
states that "housecleaning chores are mostly done by
relatives."

I am sure Ms. Anderson felt she was doing a great
service to me and the blind community. I also realize that
for a newspaper to attract its readers, it must have "good
copy," and that in many cases a story must be dramatized to
emphasize a point. However, this article is so distorted
and false that I feel it has done more damage than good.
The attitudes she expresses are more sophisticated than the
stereotyped sob story of the blind man selling pencils on
the street corner, but the fundamentals are the same.

This Glen Latham's letter, and it sums up an entire systemthe clever
and plausible but false and misleading ideas and beliefs which have blocked
our progress and blighted our lives through the centuries. The reporter's intentions
were doubtless good and her motives the best, but the damage is no less severe
and the hurt no easier to bearnot to mention which a lot of us are getting
tired of having our road to hell paved with other people's good intentions.
More often than not, such people act shocked if we try to set them straight
and feel angry if we are not grateful for the efforts they have made. Our conduct
is at variance with the humility they expect us to demonstrate. We do not wish
to be arrogant or truculent, but we are not prepared to sit passively by and
be pictured as what we are not. Let people think what they will and call us
what they please. We are simply no longer willing to be second-class citizens.
We have learned the truth about ourselves and our blindness, and (regardless
of the consequences) we intend to live that truth. We know who we are, and we
will never go back.

If the Glen Latham story were an isolated instance, it would be regrettable
but not worth making much noise about. However, it is not isolated but typical.
The Jaycees of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, encouraged the blind of the area to
become members. With no further details one would applaud the action. However,
the Jaycees established a segregated chapter for the blindand what do
you suppose the chapter was named? It was called the Deadeye Chapter. If the
name was meant to be funny, it is sick. If it was not, it is sicker. Karen Mayry
and our other South Dakota members are fighting hard to combat such madness,
and we are making progress; but the road stretches far ahead.

The United States Association for Blind Athletes is
relatively noncontroversial, but in 1979 a seemingly
innocent event concerning that organization occurred which
demonstrates why the sophistries about blindness are so
attractive to the members of the sighted public. Jeff
Hopper is Vice President of Marketing and Administration for
a savings and loan association in the Puget Sound area. He
is also volunteer president of the Northwest Chapter of the
United States Association for Blind Athletes. In a magazine
column he wrote as follows:

The concept of winning has long been taught through
athletic competition. It is a priority in our society and
most people who would be considered "successful" can relate
to some form of athletic competition.

Until recently, however, blind and visually impaired
persons in the United States have been excluded from
athletic participation. More importantly, the lack of
athletic participation for the visually handicapped has
restricted their learning of the winning process.

I am sure that Mr. Hopper is both generous and
sincere, and at first glance there would seem to be nothing
wrong with his statement. But look again. Is it really
necessary for the blind (or, for that matter, the sighted)
to engage in athletics to learn the concept of winning or
understand how to be successful? If it is, and if the blind
never had the opportunity to participate in athletics before
the establishment of the United States Association for Blind
Athletes, then how very much more important and significant
is Mr. Hopper's volunteer work than it would be if he were
simply performing a run-of-the-mill civic or community
project. Of course, the whole proposition is nothing but
nonsense and sophistry. A great many of the most successful
people the world has ever known have not had the slightest
interest in athletics; and as we know from personal
experience, there are (and always have been) plenty of ways
for the blind to learn the concept of winning without
engaging in athletics. This is not to take anything away
from the United States Association for Blind Athletes or Mr.
Hopper. It is only to point out one of the reasons why
sophistries about the blind are so attractive. They permit
sighted people with feelings of inferiority to feel
important.

Even though the actions of the newspaper reporter,
the Jaycees, and Mr. Hopper do us harm, there may be some
excuse for their behavior. They are not constantly dealing
with blind people, and they do not have the opportunity on a
daily basis to observe the problems created by the
misconceptions and wrong ideas which they help to promote.
For the most part they do not claim to be experts.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the employees
of the governmental and private agencies established to give
service to the blind. Their much vaunted "professionalism,"
their very rationale for being, rests upon the premise that
they know what blindness is about and how to deal with it.
In the manner of doctors dealing with medical matters, they
hold themselves out as the possessors of correct
information, and they say they can teach that information
not only to the public but also to those of us who are
blind.

Yet, much of the literature which comes from these agencies is worse than
what we get from the public. As an example, I call your attention to a book
published by the American Foundation for the Blind in 1974 and reissued in 1978.
It was written by a person with impressive credentials named Anne Yeadon, and
it is entitled Toward IndependenceThe Use of Instructional Objectives
In Teaching Daily Living Skills to the Blind. If there was ever a case of destructive
sophistry and just plain drivel, this book is it. If what it teaches represents
all we can expect in the way of independence, who can wonder at the fear people
have about blindness and the low esteem in which we are so often held!

This treatise on "independence" has sections on: table
behavior, domestic tasks, kitchen equipment, and cooking.
Let us look at the section on table behavior. It contains
these subparts:

Seating Self at a Table

The Locating Technique

An Informal Place Setting

Exploring Contents of a Plate of Food

Use of a Knife and Fork to Cut Food

Placing Knife on Plate When Not in Use

Checking for Food Dropped from Plate

Placing of Knife and Fork at Close of Meal

Differentiating Pepper and Salt

Applying Pepper and Salt

Pouring Cold Liquids

Adding Sugar to a Drink

Use of the Spoon for Stirring

Obtaining Food From a Relish Dish

Boning a Fish

Serving Self at the Table

Pouring of Hot Liquids

Carrying Containers of Food/Liquid

Drinking Soup With the Aid of a Spoon

"Scooping" Food With the Aid of a Fork

The "Buffer" Technique

Buttering a Piece of Bread

Cutting Salad With a Knife and Fork

Use of a fork to eat desserts

Handling and Eating Dry Foods

Cutting Fried Eggs With the Aid of a Knife and Fork

Cutting a Piece of Pie/Cake

Lighting a Cigarette Using an Ash Tray

I think we can get the tone of the book by examining two of these items.

First, let us see what it says about "Placing Knife on
Plate When Not in Use":

TITLE: Demonstrating the placing of the knife on the
plate.

OBJECTIVE: During the course of a meal the student will
demonstrate the ability to place the knife on the top right
hand side of the plate. This will be done in accordance with
the following criteria:

1. with the handle of the knife overlapping the edge of
the plate,
2. without the knife being pushed over or into the
plate,
3. ensuring ease in relocating knife by using same
position each time.

TECHNIQUE (Manual Dexterity): The student, during the course of a meal, may
decide he does not need the use of the knife. In order to relocate the knife
easily, it is suggested that it be placed in the same position on the plate
each time, eg. across the top right-hand corner of the plate, between a 12 O'clock
and 3 o'clock position. [I might inject here that most of the plates I deal
with do not have cornersbut back to the text.]

In order to achieve the above, the student will bring his right hand to the
right side edge of the platebut will not allow the knife to touch the
table. The thumb will locate an approximate 3 O'clock position. The handle of
the knife will be placed in this position, with the tip of the handle slightly
overlapping the edge of the platethis allows the student to relocate the
knife by running his fingers along the outer edge of the plate and not placing
his hand into the plate.

Safety Awareness: The student will attempt to retain a
mental picture of the position of the knife, as the fork, when
being used, may inadvertently push the knife from the plate.

That is what it says, and for the life of me I cannot
understand the comment about safety. Moreover, one gets the
distinct impression that the author is speaking to a child,
programming a robot, or talking to a person who has never had
contact with civilization. When an individual becomes blind,
that individual does not automatically lose all of the
knowledge and abilities that he or she ever possessed; nor
does the person become retarded.

But back to the book. What is said about the knife is no
worse than what is said about the spoon:

TITLE: Demonstrating the use of a spoon for stirring.

OBJECTIVE: When presented with a container of liquid and
a spoon the student will demonstrate the ability to use the
spoon to stir the liquid. This will be done in accordance
with the following criteria:

1. by placing the spoon into the container without
causing the container to overturn or overflow.
2. by introducing the "stirring motion" without the
liquid overflowing.
3. by replacing the spoon in its original position
without disturbing other items.

TECHNIQUE (Manual Dexterity): The student will hold the spoon in the same
manner as a soup spoon, except that it will be held with the inner bowl facing
the student's body and in a vertical position when placed in the container.
[I interrupt to wonder how else except in a vertical position one could hold
the spoon if the container has any depth and if it is in an upright position
with its bottom on the tablebut back to the learned text.]

If the container has a handle the student will grasp it
firmly. If the container does not have a handle the student
will place the thumb of the free hand over the top, side edge
and the remaining fingers will lie just below the thumb along
the side of the bowl. The spoon will be brought to the
container and the bowl of the spoon placed into the liquid.

Finger Manipulation and Safety Awareness: The spoon will be turned, usually
in clockwise motion, around the circumference of the container, by a gentle
circular motion of the wrist without scraping the sides or bottom of the container.
The spoon will then be returned to its original position. If, however, the liquid
is thick, the handle of the spoon should be lightly tapped on the side of the
containerto remove excessbefore returning to its original position.

NOTE: The instructor will hold her hand over the
student's and vice versa, and demonstrate the smoothness of
the task. A student low on concepts will probably require
extensive practice to achieve successful results.

I find myself very nearly overwhelmedand also beset by a number of questions.
What if the she is a he? What if I don't want to move the spoon in a clock-wise
direction? What if I don't want to grasp the handle of the container or drape
my fingers over the top side edge? It is enough to drive one to drinkafter,
of course, the spoon has been removed as a matter of safety.

Remember that there is an entire book full of this idiocy
and that this is not an isolated but a typical example of what
we are getting from the agencies. Is it any wonder that the
public is reinforced in its misconceptions and that the blind
(especially blind children who grow up in the system or newly
blind persons who fall into its clutches) come to doubt their
worth and belittle their abilities!

With this sort of madness coming not just from the public
but also from the agencies it is no wonder that blind persons
(especially those not having the perspective which is gained
by the information, the shared experiences, and the
reinforcement which come from membership in the National
Federation of the Blind) often develop offbeat and unrealistic
devices for trying to gain prestige and for not appearing to
be like other blind people. There is the Uncle Remus
technique of pretending to be crafty and possessed of special
powers, which is typified by a quote attributed to a blind man
who was formerly in the Maryland legislature. In the article
concerning his death in the July 31, 1979, Baltimore Sun this
passage appears: "As a legislator, he maintained that his
blindness was an aid as well as a handicap. He once told a
reporter that he developed an increased sense of hearing
because of his loss of sight, which he said allowed him to
pick up word of political deals being made far down a hall or
across a committee room."

Of course, we know that such claims are utter nonsense,
playing on the credibility of the public and reinforcing and
feeding back to the sighted their own superstitions. Or
perhaps the man didn't say it at all. Maybe it was simply
made up by the reporter as a good line and a plausible story.
Whichever way it happened, this sort of thing does not achieve
the objective of making the blind seem more capable. It harms
us and increases the general notion of our abnormality.

Then, there is another technique. In the May 10, 1984, Washington Post there
is an article headlined "Blind Student Seizes Challenges." The article
details the accomplishments of a blind studentpresident of the student
body, floor president of his dormitory, administrative assistant to the College
Democrats, and a lot more of the same. In the midst of it all, this passage
occurs: "Schroeder lives in a house off campus with three other students.
He usually walks the 20 minutes from home to campus alone. No dog, no cane,
no guide.

"Using any of these aids would mean 'admitting that he is
blind,' said Andrew Sherman, a good friend. 'And he doesn't
envision himself as a blind person. He sees himself as a
person who is blind."

This is not independence. It is pathetic self-deception. Again, it does not
elevate the image or improve the standing of the blindnot even of the
student in question. The very article we are discussing proves the point by
talking about how the student gets lost and spends hours trying to find his
way home, and how he is very proud of not having to ask for help.

So the circle is completethe misconceptions of the public, the acceptance
and strengthening of those misconceptions by the agencies, the passthrough to
the blind, and the feedback once more to the public: each component reinforcing
the myths and false beliefs of the other and each using the other as authority.
In such circumstances is it any wonder that I recently received a letter from
an inventor who said that he had constructed a special toilet paper holder for
the blind and that he would like us to help him market it? Is it any wonder
that another inventor thinks the blind cannot clean themselves at all and should
only use toilet paper for drying after being washed by the special spray he
has constructed? In his letter of October 25, 1983, the inventor says: "The
blind will really appreciate the use of the Hygeia cleaning because the designed
spray cleans quickly and thorough. Drying is complete by only using a few sheets
of tissue or a small cloth."

Is it any wonder that a man wrote to me a few months ago
saying that he would rather be dead than blind! In his own
words: "I have just been told I have the narrow type glaucoma
that might lead to an emergency. I'm scared. Please send any
prevention data. Couldn't live without eyesight. Wouldn't
want to."

So what does it meanall of this analyzing of the circle of sophistry
about blindness, all of this talk about where we are and where we have been?
What is our present situation, and what lies ahead? In the first place let us
recognize that, with all of our problems, we have it better today than we have
ever had it before in all of our history. In ancient times we were exposed to
die on the hillsides as babies. In the middle ages we were dressed in donkey
cars and forced to fight each other at country fairs for public sport. In the
early years of the present century we were treated with more apparent kindness,
but as we know, appearances are not always what they seem. We were no longer
put out to die on the hillsides or forced to fight each other for the entertainment
of our neighbors, but the substance of public attitudes remained the same. There
were no jobs, no opportunities, and no hope.

I know from personal experience (and so do many of the rest of you) the pain
and despair of continued isolation and nothing to do. Some of us broke free.
The rest remained captivesome for a lifetime, and some still existing.
There comes a time when the spirit dies and the body lives on. It is a close
question as to whether it is better to die as a child or continue to exist year
after year in the living death which many of the blind have endured. Yes, I
know the implications of the question; and no, I am not exaggerating. I mean
exactly and literally what I say.

But, of course, our answer to the question is simple: we
are no longer willing to accept either one of these
alternatives. We have learned to be free, and we intend to
keep it that way. We have eaten at the table of liberty, and
we will never again settle for the crumbs on the floor.

As our movement continues to strengthen, the circle of
sophistry weakens. There is much good will toward the blind,
and while it is true that some people resent our progress,
most do not. As they learn who we are and what we are, the
majority join with us. With the work of the Federation in
South Dakota the Deadeye Chapter of the Jaycees lasted for
less than a year. Our television and radio announcements
blanket the airwaves, and we have had major network coverage
in recent months. We confront the airlines when they try to
make us take segregated seating. We find new jobs in expanded
areas of employment. Above all, an increasing number of us
are living our Federationism on a daily basis, knowing it to
be our passport to freedom.

In the days ahead our task will not be easy. We know it, and we are prepared.
Whatever the sacrifice, we will make it. Whatever the price, we will pay it.
We must finish our march to acceptance and full membership in society. Our heritage
requires it; our purpose proclaims it; our humanity demands it. This cause of
ours is a sacred trust. It is worthy of all that we have or can ever hope to
beand we shall not fail. My brothers and my sisters, the future is ours.
Come! Join me in the battle, and we will make it all come true!